Multi-Custom In-Ear Monitor Review, Resource, Mfg List & Discussion (Check first post for review links & information)

[project86]

Quote:

 
Thanks!
 
I have gone through your reviews and considering price, source matching and what I wanted most, I am leaning to the Alclair Reference and the Fabs most.
 
I also noticed that the Rocoo Power doesn't match well with the list of CIEMs you presented me. You haven't mentioned the DX100 for all CIEMs, can I assume that it does well with every (C)IEM?
 
At this moment, I guess I can either opt to buy the DX100 and have an upgrade for all my IEMs or go for a CIEM that matches very well with my Clip+ and that produces the kind of sound I like. The CIEM will beat all existing IEMs I own (at least technically) and if I would opt for a CIEM that matches my source (Clip+), I have the ability to be very portable with an amazing rig!
 
The 4.A(i) seems to be quite the (c)IEM in existing reviews. How does it match with the Clip+?
 
Will adding an amp, like Corda MOVE in between the Clip and the Alclair Reference, make the setup sound better (detail, soundstage, ...)? Have you tried the Alclair with the O2, fed by ODAC o any other DAC? Or by iBasso D4/D10, DAC and/or AMP?

 
I use the 4.A with the Clip+ all the time. It's great. Of course, the 4.A gets better with an amp - specifically by having more fleshed-out lows. But it's still enjoyable with the Clip+. 

 

[average_joe]

Quote:

From the test tones downloaded online, I can definitely hear 20hz clearly, just at a lower volume due to roll off. I can even hear up to 19khz tone, but at a very very low volume. 18khz tone is very clear however. 
 
Indeed, Stage3 is more balanced than STage4 even in the demos. But they had an unnatural tone to it when I listened to them, thats why I chose the IERM over them.

 
All I can think is either our units perform quite differently (and I have read that others have similar bass results), or we are listening to tones at very different volume levels.  I listen at my normal volume levels, which are relatively low.
 
Quote:

a defective demo perhaps?...I got my whole arsenal of iems when I tested yesterday. Maybe coming from JH, the Stage3/4 seemed to be better imo.
 
And Stage3 is more balanced sounding than the Stage4.
 
I demoed the heir 8a, EM4, EM6 and the T1 Live but only the Stage3 got me satisfied. I was actually hoping that it will perform less others which I know got some great reviews here. And I stayed their listening for 1 hour. They reminded me of the tonality of the UM Miracles with a bit better resolution and wider soundstage.
 
t

 
While I understand the desire to hear a demo before purchase, I have experienced quite a difference between some demos and the customized versions, while others didn't have as large of a difference.  Fit plays a large role in how a demo will sound, as does the tuning for a specific ear (distance of drivers, sound tube configuration, etc.).
 
Quote:

the EM6 has a milder bass than the EM4 and both have creamy mids, thicker note than the rest of the ciems. The soundstage of EM6 is also very wide, not intimate. It's has a very unique tone which I cannot compare to other iems. Resolution is also very good. The EM6 would have been my first choice coz I still like my sm3 sound if only I havent heard the Compact ciems. But im not deciding yet, maybe a couple more auditions .
Then the salesguy told me that my decision will be very difficult because they are also.going to offer fitears next month. 

 
Thanks.  So, are these all demos you are comparing?
 
Quote:

 
Thanks!
 
I have gone through your reviews and considering price, source matching and what I wanted most, I am leaning to the Alclair Reference and the Fabs most.
 
I also noticed that the Rocoo Power doesn't match well with the list of CIEMs you presented me. You haven't mentioned the DX100 for all CIEMs, can I assume that it does well with every (C)IEM?
 
At this moment, I guess I can either opt to buy the DX100 and have an upgrade for all my IEMs or go for a CIEM that matches very well with my Clip+ and that produces the kind of sound I like. The CIEM will beat all existing IEMs I own (at least technically) and if I would opt for a CIEM that matches my source (Clip+), I have the ability to be very portable with an amazing rig!
 
The 4.A(i) seems to be quite the (c)IEM in existing reviews. How does it match with the Clip+?
 
Will adding an amp, like Corda MOVE in between the Clip and the Alclair Reference, make the setup sound better (detail, soundstage, ...)? Have you tried the Alclair with the O2, fed by ODAC o any other DAC? Or by iBasso D4/D10, DAC and/or AMP?

 
The RoCoo Power isn't a good product for BA IEMs, but the RoCoo BA is.  The DX100 does outperform the RoCoo BA, but it should for the price.  What source you choose depends on how much you will pay attention and what CIEM you get.  The Alclair doesn't improve all that much with DACs and a Clip+ is a nice pairing, and I usually find the Clip+ more adequate than good.  I haven't tried the O2 with the Alclair yet, but I will try to give it a go soon.

 

[project86]

HERE is a link to my review of the Lear LCM-5 if anyone is interested. It's quite a good sounding custom with something of a unique sound compared to my other models. 

 

[Sinocelt]

Quote:

I use the 4.A with the Clip+ all the time. It's great. Of course, the 4.A gets better with an amp - specifically by having more fleshed-out lows. But it's still enjoyable with the Clip+. 

 
+1
 
I've used the original Clip with it, the Clip+, and now the Clip Zip.

 

[Xymordos]

The LCM5 certainly looks very nice! I wonder what would the adapter do on other IEMS...
 
and Joe, I normally listen to them at around 10 oclock on my m-Stage, and 16/30 volume on my Sony A844. I guess that is a medium volume compared to your low volume. 

 

[project86]

The LCM5 certainly looks very nice! I wonder what would the adapter do on other IEMS...

Probably not a good idea because of the specific tuning for the LCM-5. I tried it briefly with the 6.A and it sounded really weird. Haven't tried any others.

 

[Xymordos]

That's really a shame...Would've been cool if other IEMs could get a monitor like sound signature too!

 

[AstralStorm]

Trying again: any IEM (preferably CIEM) that has a signature similar to Beyers DT 1350 and/or T70p?
 
Alternatively, like Brainwavz B2/Fischer Audio DBA-02 (w/ foams) without the large 4-6k...
 
--
On related note, has anyone here heard Cosmic Ears CIEMs?

 

[project86]

Quote:

Trying again: any IEM (preferably CIEM) that has a signature similar to Beyers DT 1350 and/or T70p?
 
Alternatively, like Brainwavz B2/Fischer Audio DBA-02 (w/ foams) without the large 4-6k...
 
--
On related note, has anyone here heard Cosmic Ears CIEMs?

 
 
I've got some of the Cosmic Ears models with more on the way. So far they break down as follows:
 
1) Basic Pure model with dynamic driver ($100) is a sort of "good for the masses" type sound, but probably not good enough to satisfy most HeadFiers. It's got big, fun bass and somewhat recessed mids and highs. This is more for the iBud user who wants to get a really comfy fit and isn't terribly focused on SQ.
 
2) Pure Plus with the single BA driver ($130) is where it starts getting good. Not the best sounding IEM in the world but definitely enjoyable - smooth highs that don't get in your face, very respectable bass depth and impact, and overall just a clean sounding enjoyable IEM without any significant flaws. I think most HeadFiers would enjoy these as long as they aren't expecting to get JH13 level sound for $130, especially as a workout, yardwork, throw-in-the-bag-and-go type IEM that is secondary to your more expensive main earphones.
 
3) Flex with the twin BA driver ($170). The Flex comes in many configurations (hence the term "Flex") - mine has the twin BA driver (proprietary to Cosmic Ears) and the micro-sized shell. I have a bit of a fit issue on the left side but I can still get a decent seal when I insert it just so. This thing sounds really good! Neutral, fast, solid bass that has great punch to it, and more sparkle up top than the single BA model. Still, it's not a bright sounding IEM, having a nice smoothness to it. This model is good enough to where I'd call it competitive for the price even if it was a universal model. The fact that it is a custom IEM for this price is very impressive.
 
3) I've got another Flex on the way in the next 3-4 weeks. It will be the hybrid triple driver configuration with dual BA drivers and a dynamic for lows. It can be just over $300 in basic form but I got mine up to a whopping $375 by maxing it out with practically all the options (premium detachable cable, recessed sockets, blue color). I'm especially excited to hear this one - it uses the same twin BA driver as my other Flex but tuned differently because of the dynamic that handles the lows (which is a different dynamic than the base model Pure). This has potential to be a killer value. Most of the competition at this price uses dual BA drivers at best. 

 

[AstralStorm]

Here's another rephrasing of my CIEM problem:
Please help me find something that sounds like Brainwavz B2 with silicones with better subbass handling and improved extreme high end bandwidth.
(Also, these sound relatively close to T70p's above in this setup - tinge heavier in bass and quite a bit rolled off. With foams, they sound less bass heavy and more 5-6k treble boosted.)
 
Note that Brainwavz B2 uses a TWFK, which is relatively common in CIEMs - but TWFK ends at 17 kHz (and rolls off steeply earlier) and has problems with handling subbass < 80 Hz. (distortion, gets rough) - plus these have non-neglible 5-6k boost.
On the upside, it doesn't have a typical BA 3 kHz or 5 kHz resonance. If everything fails, I'll just get custom tips for these.
Obviously, I'll need a good impression kit. Pointers in this regard are also much appreciated.

 

[average_joe]

Quote:

 
 I've got some of the Cosmic Ears models with more on the way. So far they break down as follows:

 
Nice summary, thanks for sharing!
 
Quote:

Here's another rephrasing of my CIEM problem:
Please help me find something that sounds like Brainwavz B2 with silicones with better subbass handling and improved extreme high end bandwidth.
(Also, these sound relatively close to T70p's above in this setup - tinge heavier in bass and quite a bit rolled off. With foams, they sound less bass heavy and more 5-6k treble boosted.)
 
Note that Brainwavz B2 uses a TWFK, which is relatively common in CIEMs - but TWFK ends at 17 kHz (and rolls off steeply earlier) and has problems with handling subbass < 80 Hz. (distortion, gets rough) - plus these have non-neglible 5-6k boost.
On the upside, it doesn't have a typical BA 3 kHz or 5 kHz resonance. If everything fails, I'll just get custom tips for these.
Obviously, I'll need a good impression kit. Pointers in this regard are also much appreciated.

 
Maybe the Rooth LS6.

 

[s0lar]

Yesterday I received SM3, on a temporary loan. This IEM is excellent. It brings me even closer to knowing what I look for in the perfect (C)IEM, if it would exist anyway. I am only talking about sound preference.
I thought EQ-5 was as close as I could get and I just needed more and better of THAT without hiss and I would have the perfect sound.
Well, something needs to be added.
SM3 has a very 3D like presentation and has better imaging than I ever thought possible. SM3 is not perfect and EQ5, to me, comes closer. EQ-5 has more flesh and bone quality with stringed intruments. SM3's vocals sound a little too up-front (worse than EQ-5) but spot-on-centre (better than EQ-5). SM3's treble extension is better and smoother (perhaps too smooth). I prefer EQ-5's bass.
I need to re-read all the reviews and perhaps make another choice. I don't mind, it brings me closer to finding the perfect sounding (c)IEM. Thanks for all the info and nice people around on head-fi. Funny that I once thought RE-0 must be perfection, hell, even Brainwavz M1.

 

[colinharding]

SM3 is very analogue sounding, smooth, warm, forward mids, rolled off highs, old school tone.  I was a big fan.  EQ5 is more of a modern HiFi sound IMO, brighter, faster, more in your face, very EQ'd, but less natural.  

 

[s0lar]

Quote:

SM3 is very analogue sounding, smooth, warm, forward mids, rolled off highs, old school tone.  I was a big fan.  EQ5 is more of a modern HiFi sound IMO, brighter, faster, more in your face, very EQ'd, but less natural.  

 
I did not find EQ-5 to be bright. To my ears SM3 has more treble extension and presence. EQ-5 might be a tad faster.

 

[colinharding]

Quote:

 
I did not find EQ-5 to be bright. To my ears SM3 has more treble extension and presence. EQ-5 might be a tad faster.

 
 
 
No, not in the context of IEMs at large, but juxtaposed with the SM3 I found that the EQ-5 was a skosh brighter.  More treble presence does not necessarily make it sonically brighter, it is the sound signature as a whole that I found brighter than that of the SM3 but not by a large margin.  Everyone hears a bit differently though, so take my opinions with a grain of salt.